A
(This is just a sample of things from A, to see the full A listings, scroll down the left side bar).
Adverts don't affect me
In London's Soho area once I was having lunch with an advertising guy, and I told him 'Adverts don't affect me much'. He laughed and said 'Everyone thinks that!'
I take his point, meaning that advertising is designed to reach us without us realising. Or if we realise it we often dont like to think we are being duped, so we say 'Huh, not me'.
However, in some cases, for some people, its true that adverts have very little affect on what they buy. Not because X person is so smart, not because they have got beyond the lies of adverts, but because there are simply no areas - or very few - in their lifestyle for adverts to squeeze themselves into. In may case I don't drive, so car adverts have no influence on my buying behaviour. For transport the only thing i've ever used, or bought, is old vintage Vespa scooters from the 1950s/60s/70s. Who makes adverts for them? Certainly no big modern advertising agencies. It's a subculture mod/scooter boy thing that some picks up by being IN that subculture. At the most they may see an advert from the 50s or 60s (like the one below) and think 'That's cool.' But that advert is a 'dead advert' in that it does not bring any money to the company advertised in it. Or it's died and being reborn as a piece of cultural history.
I also rarely go to see mainstream films when they come out, so adverts for them almost never influence my buying behaviour. Same goes for music, books, clothes, furniture, food etc. The stuff I buy are not the kinds off things that new adverts are made for since I'm into a past, retro style, that next to no adverts are made for. Therefore advertising really does have very little affect on my buying because their are no adverts made for what I buy!
The exception to that list being food. I may like music and fashion and scooters from 40 or 50 years ago, but I find that eating food 40 years past its sell by date to be less than healthy! So, perhaps food and drink adverts get to me? I suppose they do, to some small extent. But still very small, since I'm not very interested in food, and I only drink a moderate amount. I'm happy to stick to what I know already, to just buying tuna and breakfast cereal or having a whisky, etc. I'm not interested to try new food and drink much... so adverts luring folk to do so have little affect on me.
Quite often the affect is exactly the opposite. Because I'm anti-capitalist, I object to capitalist advertising in general. So, if I'm subjected to some advert, for instance those annoying ones that come up on youtube, or the huge billboards for some product etc that we are forced into seeing on streets (and who allowed them to pollute our public areas with their adverts?), then, quite often I'm annoyed at the intrusion into my life and I say to myself: 'Right, I'm never buying THAT bloody thing!'
I guess there is quite a significant section of people who, like me, are genuinely not much affected by adverts in their buying behaviour, based on lifestyle and political choices. What da ya think of them apples, Mr advertising man?
Adverts don't affect me
In London's Soho area once I was having lunch with an advertising guy, and I told him 'Adverts don't affect me much'. He laughed and said 'Everyone thinks that!'
I take his point, meaning that advertising is designed to reach us without us realising. Or if we realise it we often dont like to think we are being duped, so we say 'Huh, not me'.
However, in some cases, for some people, its true that adverts have very little affect on what they buy. Not because X person is so smart, not because they have got beyond the lies of adverts, but because there are simply no areas - or very few - in their lifestyle for adverts to squeeze themselves into. In may case I don't drive, so car adverts have no influence on my buying behaviour. For transport the only thing i've ever used, or bought, is old vintage Vespa scooters from the 1950s/60s/70s. Who makes adverts for them? Certainly no big modern advertising agencies. It's a subculture mod/scooter boy thing that some picks up by being IN that subculture. At the most they may see an advert from the 50s or 60s (like the one below) and think 'That's cool.' But that advert is a 'dead advert' in that it does not bring any money to the company advertised in it. Or it's died and being reborn as a piece of cultural history.
I also rarely go to see mainstream films when they come out, so adverts for them almost never influence my buying behaviour. Same goes for music, books, clothes, furniture, food etc. The stuff I buy are not the kinds off things that new adverts are made for since I'm into a past, retro style, that next to no adverts are made for. Therefore advertising really does have very little affect on my buying because their are no adverts made for what I buy!
The exception to that list being food. I may like music and fashion and scooters from 40 or 50 years ago, but I find that eating food 40 years past its sell by date to be less than healthy! So, perhaps food and drink adverts get to me? I suppose they do, to some small extent. But still very small, since I'm not very interested in food, and I only drink a moderate amount. I'm happy to stick to what I know already, to just buying tuna and breakfast cereal or having a whisky, etc. I'm not interested to try new food and drink much... so adverts luring folk to do so have little affect on me.
Quite often the affect is exactly the opposite. Because I'm anti-capitalist, I object to capitalist advertising in general. So, if I'm subjected to some advert, for instance those annoying ones that come up on youtube, or the huge billboards for some product etc that we are forced into seeing on streets (and who allowed them to pollute our public areas with their adverts?), then, quite often I'm annoyed at the intrusion into my life and I say to myself: 'Right, I'm never buying THAT bloody thing!'
I guess there is quite a significant section of people who, like me, are genuinely not much affected by adverts in their buying behaviour, based on lifestyle and political choices. What da ya think of them apples, Mr advertising man?
Arrogance
The accusation 'You are being arrogant' often seems to just be a way of silencing dissent, a way of saying ‘Shut up, we dont want to hear your difficult views’. It's not that the person is actually being arrogant, they are just giving a direct, strongly worded opinion. Try dealing with their point, rather than pushing it aside by a silly accusation of arrogance.
Art
What is Art, and what is an Artist? Oh, easy questions, huh!
Here's my own attitude towards artistic work, focusing on writing, which is what I do: writing is a strange thing, like most artistic jobs. it is a dream of many people to do artistic work like a writer, singer, painter, actor -but most give it up in the late teens or early 20s. Some people continue, though, through a mixture of being brave and stupid. Brave because its takes power to continue to follow your dreams. Stupid because its a long and difficult road, and you can normally make more money doing a safe job, like accountancy or teaching.
So, even if you succeed in some way you will probably not have much money.... unless you are VERY lucky and get a hit song, or big selling book, or major film. But what percentage of artists, of all types, get such a big commercial 'hit'? Are there any statistics own that? I would guess its not as much as 10%. Though perhaps a quarter to half of artists make some small to moderate amount of money. But, basically you need to do the artistic thing because you LOVE it, for the beauty of it, because its meaningful to you in some way.
Also, it's not a good idea to do art for the fame it may bring - that really is a stupid reason to do it. Fame ain't what it's cracked up to be. A lot of fame is unhealthy, it often drives people near crazy.
As to myself, I have a little bit fame now as a comic book writer. to be honest (as opposed to lying through my teeth!) I do want to be a bit more well known, just a bit. Why? - because it can help me to do more good books and make enough money for a decent standard of life for me and my loved ones in the process. In this capitalist system, which I detest, a certain degree of fame can help an artist gain the freedom to do the work they want to do. Because if your book/music/movies won't make much profit then the company will not put it out. That is a key reason why capitalism is not a good system - it hold back art by tying artists to the need to make profit (oh, and it also holds back science, education, environmental protection, etc). See the next listing!
What is Art, and what is an Artist? Oh, easy questions, huh!
Here's my own attitude towards artistic work, focusing on writing, which is what I do: writing is a strange thing, like most artistic jobs. it is a dream of many people to do artistic work like a writer, singer, painter, actor -but most give it up in the late teens or early 20s. Some people continue, though, through a mixture of being brave and stupid. Brave because its takes power to continue to follow your dreams. Stupid because its a long and difficult road, and you can normally make more money doing a safe job, like accountancy or teaching.
So, even if you succeed in some way you will probably not have much money.... unless you are VERY lucky and get a hit song, or big selling book, or major film. But what percentage of artists, of all types, get such a big commercial 'hit'? Are there any statistics own that? I would guess its not as much as 10%. Though perhaps a quarter to half of artists make some small to moderate amount of money. But, basically you need to do the artistic thing because you LOVE it, for the beauty of it, because its meaningful to you in some way.
Also, it's not a good idea to do art for the fame it may bring - that really is a stupid reason to do it. Fame ain't what it's cracked up to be. A lot of fame is unhealthy, it often drives people near crazy.
As to myself, I have a little bit fame now as a comic book writer. to be honest (as opposed to lying through my teeth!) I do want to be a bit more well known, just a bit. Why? - because it can help me to do more good books and make enough money for a decent standard of life for me and my loved ones in the process. In this capitalist system, which I detest, a certain degree of fame can help an artist gain the freedom to do the work they want to do. Because if your book/music/movies won't make much profit then the company will not put it out. That is a key reason why capitalism is not a good system - it hold back art by tying artists to the need to make profit (oh, and it also holds back science, education, environmental protection, etc). See the next listing!
Artists in Capitalism
Capitalism holds back artists, of all types, for two main reasons:
1. It directs (almost forces) them to focusing on doing work that will make money, not on doing art that will be interesting. It’s not so easy to make those two things mix well.
2. It’s a system that doesn’t encourage people to develop their intelligence to the full... and therefore they also don’t develop their interest in art much, or their knowledge of literature, or a high level of sophistication for cultural aspects in general.
Average person is stupid?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
(although it is unlikely that he really said that. So lets attribute it instead to, say...Mr Bean. Who, it seems, has never had a full five minute chat with anyone ).
A common quote, often made by folk not so keen on democracy. A worrying point is that ‘the average voter’ may be even less politically aware/educated than when Churchill said that. According to the long book ‘The intellectual life of the British working classes’ by Jonathan Rose we underestimate just how well read working class folk were in 19thC and early 20thC Britain, with membership of working men’s libraries and reading groups being common.
Of course this is part of a classic problem, going back to ancient Greece, up to Walter Lippmann’s writing and today: 'Are the ordinary people, the demos, capable of actually running a democracy? Or will they make a right arse out of it, pluck for lots of silly things?’ (as they did in the UK and USA in 2016).
I think the answer is: Yes, we are capable of organising ourselves well. That is a basic presumption of anarchism. But it does not help that we appear to be deliberately kept dumb and lacking critical thinking ability. So, the first thing to be dealt with is that we need to have the following as an absolutely key element of society: the fostering of critical thinking ability, knowledge on a wide range of things for its own sake, familiarity with the aims and processes of science and art… and the idea that we can and should play a part in how our world is run.
Is ANY mainstream political party in the UK or USA running on that ticket? If not, then why not?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
(although it is unlikely that he really said that. So lets attribute it instead to, say...Mr Bean. Who, it seems, has never had a full five minute chat with anyone ).
A common quote, often made by folk not so keen on democracy. A worrying point is that ‘the average voter’ may be even less politically aware/educated than when Churchill said that. According to the long book ‘The intellectual life of the British working classes’ by Jonathan Rose we underestimate just how well read working class folk were in 19thC and early 20thC Britain, with membership of working men’s libraries and reading groups being common.
Of course this is part of a classic problem, going back to ancient Greece, up to Walter Lippmann’s writing and today: 'Are the ordinary people, the demos, capable of actually running a democracy? Or will they make a right arse out of it, pluck for lots of silly things?’ (as they did in the UK and USA in 2016).
I think the answer is: Yes, we are capable of organising ourselves well. That is a basic presumption of anarchism. But it does not help that we appear to be deliberately kept dumb and lacking critical thinking ability. So, the first thing to be dealt with is that we need to have the following as an absolutely key element of society: the fostering of critical thinking ability, knowledge on a wide range of things for its own sake, familiarity with the aims and processes of science and art… and the idea that we can and should play a part in how our world is run.
Is ANY mainstream political party in the UK or USA running on that ticket? If not, then why not?